Alex Silva and Jeffrey Riecke’s recent blog post entitled “What’s ‘Responsible’ about Impact Investing Exits?” hits squarely on the head a critical issue facing our industry. But it doesn’t go far enough. They ask “What if responsible investors sell their stake to an investor that doesn’t place priority on the social mission?” They argue for investors to take a “pragmatic” course and find “a buyer in the middle,” meaning something in between the “high-priced but questionable offer” and the “capital-starved social investors.” This left me wondering, who exactly is in the middle?

In the past, the NGO founders of what are today profitable microfinance banks were expected to be the keepers of a social mission, if not through ownership then through some form of continuing sponsorship or governance role. Compared to five years ago, today we see term sheets that force NGO shareholders out in the name of successful exits. In fact, even the large open-ended funds, presumably more socially-responsible leaning ones, and the development finance institutions (DFIs) that technically don’t require tighter exits of 5-7 years, are coming with term sheets that require a put option (an option contract giving the owner the right to sell assets at an agreed price) in 5-7 years back to the NGO founder or the company, or that include a drag-along right that forces a majority sale to a future “strategic buyer.” In other words, if the minority investor finds a strategic buyer who wishes to buy a majority stake or to acquire the whole company, the investor can drag other shares along to constitute a majority sale.

This seems to be the outcome of lessons that exits are still incredibly difficult in our industry. With IPOs hard to count on, the equally opaque and far off “strategic buyer” seems the other plausible solution. But just who is this strategic buyer? It is not another microfinance investment vehicle (MIV), DFI, or other player on the spectrum of social responsibility. Few of these want to buy secondary shares. A strategic buyer is a commercial bank, a telecommunications company, a consumer finance company, or other commercial entity that will want to get in on the base of the pyramid market. Hopefully the managers of these businesses might have sympathetic feelings about the business and appreciate that it is social because it reaches lower-income customers, but at the end of the day, social is not in their lexicon.

Is this a bad thing? I agree with Silva and Riecke that if lower-income customers are served well, then it shouldn’t matter. But in reality, it does often matter because there are tradeoffs. We in the financial inclusion industry are working very hard to demonstrate returns and prove that exits are possible in order to build an impact investing community of buyers and sellers. But it can be at the expense of the investees – the financial service providers. We need more of the focus to be on what these financial service providers need and how to tailor the right kind of capital to fit those needs. Where are the (affordable) investment bankers who can identify buyers and structure appropriate capital at the right stage to match those needs? Managing a double bottom line is never an even balance when shareholders are sitting at different stages of investment. There are always trade-offs. Riskier market segments, harder to reach geographies, capacity building or expansion that is good for the investee and its customer base, but will reduce book value and returns in the short run, are often at the losing end of those trade-offs. They are casualties when the dominant need is to push the price up.

Who is responsible for the responsible exit? We need shareholders to act responsibly together, to sequence investments in a way that helps the business pursue its goals and leads to the success of the business, not just the success of the impact fund. The fund managers who often sit on boards are not in the right place to do this. There are too many pressures to demonstrate a return for the next fund they are raising. Should the onus be on the anchor investors, many of whom are still DFIs and large institutional investors? The alternative is that “pragmatic” decisions taken by shareholders could force a sale to a commercial buyer when the institution might not be ready or not find such a sale in its best interest at that point in time.

In full disclosure, I am not opposed to commercial investors and ironically, I am finding the purely commercial investors easier to negotiate with, than the socially responsible ones who in theory are “like-minded.”

Vitas Group, established by Global Communities as a for-profit vehicle to advance its work in financial inclusion, operates a network of financial services companies that lend to small enterprises across the Middle East. Over the last decade, Vitas companies have disbursed more than $1.6 billion to 614,000 customers with an annual default rate below one percent in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, and Jordan. Vitas employs more than 1,500 young professional staff and has sustained more than 214,000 jobs by lending to small business owners. Despite the volatility that has defined this region, even before ISIS or the Syria conflict emerged, Vitas has continued to earn double digit returns and has been a solid investment for its shareholders, illustrated by the fact that this year Vitas will close its first transactions with two purely commercial, private equity investors in the region.

To my point above, Vitas could not have arrived at this point without the right kind of capital at the right time. With new commercial partners and technological innovations coming into our industry, we have an even greater opportunity to achieve that larger goal of financial inclusion for every citizen. But that makes it all the more important for the development-focused founders, sponsors, investors, and other shareholders to govern well and to work together responsibly to shepherd the process.

Elissa McCarter-LaBorde is Chief Executive Officer of Vitas Group and Vice President of Development Finance for Global Communities, where over the last 12 years she has built the technical department that manages Global Communities’ microfinance, SME, and housing finance operations. Ms. LaBorde has 18 years’ experience as a microfinance practitioner.

Founding Sponsor

Credit Suisse is a founding sponsor of the Center for Financial Inclusion. The Credit Suisse Group Foundation looks to its philanthropic partners to foster research, innovation and constructive dialogue in order to spread best practices and develop new solutions for financial inclusion.

Note

The views and opinions expressed on this blog, except where otherwise noted, are those of the authors and guest bloggers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for Financial Inclusion or its affiliates.